Relationship between the occupancy and preferential purchase right of lessees

Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Asset-Backed Property Treatment means that the right to purchase shall not be recognized in case where the lessee is deemed to have renounced the right to use the right by transfer, sub-lease or other acts, and it cannot be interpreted that the lessee has lost the right to purchase because the lessee has not actually used the right to purchase because the lessee has not actually used the right to use the right because the lessee has failed to use the right to use the right in the first place due to the disturbance of the f.25 incident, such as the f.2

Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

Attorney No-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of the Office of Government Administration of Gyeonggi-do, Kim Yong-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 55Do21 delivered on July 16, 1955

The original judgment is reversed, and the principal case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal by the plaintiff 1 is that the plaintiff's right to purchase the plaintiff's house on the ground of the first instance judgment was lost pursuant to Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the non-party 1 even if the plaintiff's right to purchase the house was concluded on the ground of the non-party 2's first instance judgment, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's right to purchase the house was legitimate and has no infringement on the plaintiff's right to purchase the plaintiff's right to purchase the house on the ground that the non-party 2's right to purchase the house on the ground of the non-party 1's first instance judgment was not established on the non-party 5's first instance judgment, but on the non-party 1's first instance judgment, the plaintiff's right to purchase the house on the non-party 2's first instance judgment was not established on the non-party 1's first instance judgment, and it is not clear that the plaintiff's right to use the house will not belong to the non-party 2's right to use.

In accordance with evidence, the original judgment recognized the fact that the plaintiff extended the lease contract on the property devolving upon the plaintiff as of November 18, 1953 and submitted the bid deposit as of March 25, 1954 after the renewal of the lease contract as of March 18, 1954, and the plaintiff lost the preferential purchase right pursuant to Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the plaintiff belongs unless the house is actually used as a residence, even though the plaintiff concluded the lease contract on the house, the Article 10 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which he belongs, provided that the tenant would not have the preferential purchase right in the case where it is recognized that the tenant has renounced the right to use the house due to the transfer of the right to lease or the sub-lease of the house, and the same column of the United States of America, such as the 6.25 incident, and the decision of the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for the first instance court's rejection of this opinion.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)